Monday, September 10, 2007

Indonesia's supreme arbiter of right and wrong has ordered that $106m be paid by Time for defaming Suharto! HAHAHAHAHA

Time claimed that the Suharto family stole $73bn, the Indonesian supreme court commented:

"...the article has damaged the reputation and honour of the grand general of the Indonesian armed forces and former president of Indonesia"

HAHAHAHA

I love those supreme court fuckers.

So is it a question of a figure? Would $40bn, $30bn, $20bn be more accurate non-defamatory figures?

(I wish I could come up with something more intelligent, but that judgment and article is satire enough.)

I wonder will Time now leave Indonesia? I wonder is this going to be the new face of repression - the ever-so-legalistic-Singapore-way - sue the hell out of those who raise their heads above the parapet. It's even better in Indonesia, cos the Supreme court will pretty much write a blank check - the court will cut themselves a fat commission in any case.

Somehow sounds like the plot of a Heroes episode - or even echoes of occupied Europe.

In both these cases, I don't think you can say that the Church or the network of families and teachers are morally wrong when breaking the law (what does that tell you about immigration laws?). In fact, I know of no reasonable moral code which judges rights and wrongs based on where one chooses the live.

[And I know for a fact that there is very little (if any) economics based reasoning for restrictions of movement]

Sunday, September 02, 2007

The Economist's Oath (though it may vary, 'The Oath' takes the following, or similar form):

"As an economist I promise never to reveal the secret of The Illusion to a non-economist, unless that one swears to uphold the Economist's Oath in turn. I promise never to perform The Illusion for any non-economists without first practicing the effect until I can perform it well enough to maintain The Illusion of Economics."

Upon getting their PhD, economists must repeat the secret oath above. It's similar to the Hippocratic Oath which medical doctors have to abide by, but (1) economists need this oath to stay employed, and (2) they must also must learn a silly handshake.

Why? Because (1) there's only a single simple concept underlying all of economics that keeps economists from becoming milkmen or sociologists, and (2) Adam Smith (the founder of modern economics) was a genius at making up silly handshakes (he couldn't earn much from inventing new handshakes, so he started modern economics instead).

Of course this won't come as a surprise to those non-economists who keep tabs on the field, as economists have an illustrious history of intentionally plunging economies into disaster so they can be assured of research grants for years to come.

For example the boys at the IMF and World Bank are lauded by economists the world over for their work during the Asian financial crisis, whereas the old heads at LTCM made a complete cock-up trying to sink the world economy. Economists rarely even speak to the LTCM guys at conferences now, and there was even talk of stripping them of their Nobel Laureates, but the consensus was, however reckless, they were really ballsy.

Obviously, it's quite a dangerous undertaking revealing a secret theory of this magnitude (FYI the boys at the IMF make the Opus Dei look like a bunch of Mother Theresas [or a Bunch of Michael E. Porters if you prefer]). Rumour has it that they tried to do Milton Friedman in on numerous occasions, because he was fed up with the lies and wanted to become a tax accountant instead.

So what is the secret theory which underlies all of the relevant parts of economics? Tune in for part two!